Martin v. Hornor
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. If the complaint was designed to allege that the street fair was a public nuisance, injunction was not the remedy, and the court had no jurisdiction to grant it. 81 Ark. 117. 2. The demurrer should have been sustained because it does not appear that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. If the complaint was designed to allege that the street fair was a public nuisance, injunction was not the remedy, and the court had no jurisdiction to grant it. 81 Ark. 117. 2. The demurrer should have been sustained because it does not appear that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit. There is • no allegation of special damages, nor that as individuals they would suffer an irremediable injury differing from that of the general public. 40 Ark. 87; 50 Ark. 466; 41 Ark. 526; 65 Ark. 410; 3 Allen (Mass.) 501;…
1Opinion of the CourtRiddick, J.
This is an appeal by the mayor, chief of police and members of the city council of Helena, and the C. V. Parker Amusement Co., from a judgment of the chancery court restraining them from using the streets of the city for the purpose of holding a street fair. The plaintiffs are residents, citizens and taxpayers of the city, and seek to enjoin the use of the streets in that way on the ground that the obstruction of the streets for the purpose of holding a street fair of the kind contemplated would be ,a nuisance. But while the allegations in the complaint show that the contemplated street fair…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. VaughanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ozark Poultry Products, Inc. v. GarmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971